Netanyahu: What Comes After the Assassination of Izz al-Din al-Haddad?

In an interview with Al Jazeera Mubasher, Hamas leader Osama Hamdan was asked how the movement would respond to the assassination of Al-Qassam Brigades commander Izz al-Din al-Haddad, amidst Israel's continued policy of assassinations and its evasion of any political or negotiation commitments. Hamdan replied that the response to targeting leaders "will not be complete until the occupation is removed," and that the real response lies in the continued presence of leaders in the field and the steadfastness in facing aggression. He added that the silence of some parties, especially those who speak of the need to resort to political solutions and participate in mediation efforts, regarding the continued Israeli aggression can only be described as "political hypocrisy," urging these parties to take a clear stance and put an end to this aggression.

This position reflects, firstly, an avoidance of a direct answer regarding the limited ability of Hamas to respond immediately to the assassination, while attributing part of the responsibility for the ongoing aggression to mediators and international powers. Secondly, it reveals the movement's recognition that the assassination of leaders, no matter how painful and impactful, does not signify the end of Hamas or the collapse of its organizational and military structure, which has shown over the past years the ability to reorganize and continue its work despite significant losses.

However, this discourse also reflects a highly complex reality; the movement faces harsh and unprecedented conditions after depleting a large part of its military capabilities, and a retreat in political maneuverability, at a time when Israeli and American pressures to impose conditions related to disarmament and reshape the political and security landscape in the Gaza Strip are on the rise. In light of this equation, Hamas seems to be clinging to the option of steadfastness and continuity, while recognizing that its ability to respond militarily is no longer separate from the political and humanitarian calculations related to the future of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Israel claims it has succeeded in assassinating Izz al-Din al-Haddad, whom it describes as the last major military leader involved in planning the attack of October 7, 2023. However, this claim does not accurately reflect reality, as Haddad is not the last in the series of Hamas's military leadership, as indicated by local media and various sources. Nonetheless, the Israeli announcement came accompanied by a widespread propaganda campaign led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, who rushed to present the operation as a major strategic achievement, attempting to market a limited tactical success as a crucial turning point in the course of the war.

However, what happened, while militarily and symbolically significant, does not represent a definitive turning point in fully achieving the objectives of the war. Since the assassinations of Muhammad Deif and Marwan Issa, followed by Yahya Sinwar and Muhammad Sinwar, there have been no indications that the movement is prepared to abandon its weapons or make a fundamental change in its political stance. Most likely, new leadership will be appointed quickly, as has happened every time before.

The celebratory messages issued by Netanyahu reflect, in essence, more than they conceal the state of impasse experienced by his government. For more than two and a half years of war, the "absolute victory" promised to the Israelis remains elusive. Continuous military operations and repeated assassinations have not led to the elimination of Hamas, the retrieval of all Israeli prisoners, or the imposition of a new political reality in Gaza.

A number of Israeli analysts believe that what Netanyahu is presenting to the public is a series of tactical achievements being exaggerated and marketed as strategic accomplishments. However, the truth is that these limited successes do not fundamentally alter the crisis. Hamas remains intact despite the harsh blows, and the sector remains an open arena for attrition, while Israel's international isolation increases, and accusations against it of committing war crimes and genocide widen.

In this context, the assassination of Haddad seems to be just another episode in an Israeli policy based on the belief that neutralizing leaders will automatically lead to the collapse of the movement. This policy has not proven successful, despite the fact that most first-tier leaders in the military wing have been assassinated. It is true that Hamas still possesses an organizational structure capable of reproducing leadership and continuing to operate, but it is also clear that its capabilities have significantly diminished, and its ability to initiate and respond has become more limited.

The assassination coincides with Israeli preparations to resume a broader war, even though the war has not actually stopped for a single day. This is accompanied by increasing talk of new forced displacements and expanding military control to cover about 70% of the Gaza Strip's area. However, the final decision does not rely solely on Netanyahu but is largely linked to the calculations of U.S. President Donald Trump and his regional priorities, particularly concerning Iran.

In contrast, Osama Hamdan's response reveals a clear gap between political discourse and the catastrophic humanitarian reality that the residents of the Gaza Strip are experiencing. General responses about "continuing resistance until the occupation is removed" do not provide a convincing explanation for people facing daily bombardment, hunger, and displacement, nor do they clarify how the movement can cope with the significant decline in its military and political capabilities or with its limited ability to respond to ongoing Israeli crimes.

Ultimately, the assassination of Izz al-Din al-Haddad does not change the fundamental realities. It adds a new name to the long list of leaders assassinated by Israel, but it does not achieve the goal Netanyahu seeks: to break Hamas's will and impose political surrender on the Palestinians, despite the movement's weakness and decline, and despite its prior acceptance of a ceasefire and international resolutions aimed at salvaging what can be salvaged.

The real question remains not what Israel has achieved by assassinating Haddad, but what Netanyahu will do next. The longer the war lasts, the more the limits of military power are exposed, and it becomes clear that assassinations, no matter how precise, cannot alone resolve a political and historical conflict of this magnitude.

While Netanyahu continues to market every assassination as a step towards "absolute victory," a clearer reality unfolds: Israel achieves scattered tactical victories, but remains unable to secure a strategic victory, impose a stable political reality, or end a conflict that has once again proven that peoples are not defeated by assassinations alone.